Our world is generally intolerant. Chances are that each of us has something they don't tolerate. It can be something really small such as a smoking neighbor or a something much more significant having to do with politics, ethics or our general outlook on life, universe and everything. Although if one suffers from asthma, a smoking neighbor can be anything but 'something really small'.
It is quite common these days to preach tolerance. It is generally a good thing to be tolerant and it is even better (as in stroking one's own ego) to preach the tolerance in front of the non-enlightened ones.
However here hides a catch. Say, someone were to preach tolerance towards certain group of people. Now, what would happen if opposition would be loud, vocal, offensive and even sometimes violent? Applying similar tactics towards them would be against tolerance, would it not?
Suppose one wants to make a point for the good cause of tolerance in front of a large audience. Will it be ethical to provoke, offend, strongly stir so many people to grab their attention and make them think in the direction one wants them to think?
No, I don't have answers to these questions. I realize I am not very tolerant man in certain circumstances while I can be quite tolerant otherwise. On the other hand, I pay special attention to all those who preach tolerance as much hypocrisy may be hiding beneath those seemingly good words...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If opposition is violent, you surely are entitled to self-defense. You don't have to tolerate people trying to hurt or kill you. Which raises another question: What should we tolerate?
ReplyDeleteI think we have to define "tolerance". If the kind of tolerance you are talking about is indiscriminate tolerance, a la radical pacifism, I am against it.
ReplyDeleteI believe we should display no tolerance towards violence against innocent people, abuse, humiliation, vandalism etc.
Instead of tolerance, we should speak of the right of each person to do whatever she wants, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. In order for this to make sense, boundaries must be set. We need notions such as property and what kind of "unintentional" influence on other people is allowed, e.g. smoking, loud noise etc. Unfortunatelly, there is no clear universal rule as to where exactly the boundaries must lie. Because of this, the best solution we have so far is to decide on these boundaries via the mechanism of democratic government.
Lev, I don't have a clue as to how to define actual tolerance. Squark and you are right in a sense that tolerance can be defined a-la Leo Tolstoy or like "I tolerate ... (whatever to insert here is both obvious and depends on a specific person) as long as they don't settle in my neighborhood" way. Both are pretty extreme definitions, IMO.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth remembering however that one cannot expect more tolerance from others than one is willing come up with.
As for substituting tolerance with property rights protected by democratic government, I don't exactly subscribe to such an idea. It is noble and all that, but it is only part of the issue here.
United States of America circa 1940-1960 was pretty democratic yet remember Dr. Marthin Luther King Jr.
Perhaps I could say that tolerance is basic human obligation (as compared to basic human rights).
The problem in the US was in the inequality between the "boundaries of freedom" for different people.
ReplyDelete